Is our Universe a Computer Simulation?

[Blastolabs]

Posted by ozmirage (here)
Dr Thomas Campbell (of Monroe Institute & NASA), asserted that consciousness affects the material world, but not vice versa. Thus consciousness is the superior frame of reference. He goes on to explain how the disparity of Relativity and Quantum mechanics are resolved by considering our world as a simulation. Everything is a probability cloud until "nailed down" by measurement. It also explains the famous "double slit" experiment where light was shown to be a particle or a wave, but not both. And he also pointed out that the "Big Bang" is a direct violation of Causality, since we cannot determine what caused it (or preceded it) - and thus the whole universe is a "metaphysical" manifestation.

While I agree that consciousness affects the material world, I would also say that the material world clearly impacts consciousness.
If I cut my arm off my non physical body is also impacted.

Consciousness is the superior frame, as mentioned in the 3000 year old Hindu Vedas, but I don't think it is a one way street.

All living things are in the unique position to interact with both the physical and non physical, which is pretty cool.

[ozmirage]

Posted by Blastolabs (here)

Posted by ozmirage (here)
Dr Thomas Campbell (of Monroe Institute & NASA), asserted that consciousness affects the material world, but not vice versa. Thus consciousness is the superior frame of reference. He goes on to explain how the disparity of Relativity and Quantum mechanics are resolved by considering our world as a simulation. Everything is a probability cloud until "nailed down" by measurement. It also explains the famous "double slit" experiment where light was shown to be a particle or a wave, but not both. And he also pointed out that the "Big Bang" is a direct violation of Causality, since we cannot determine what caused it (or preceded it) - and thus the whole universe is a "metaphysical" manifestation.

While I agree that consciousness affects the material world, I would also say that the material world clearly impacts consciousness.
If I cut my arm off my non physical body is also impacted.

Consciousness is the superior frame, as mentioned in the 3000 year old Hindu Vedas, but I don't think it is a one way street.

All living things are in the unique position to interact with both the physical and non physical, which is pretty cool.

Nothing in the material world can injure nor kill consciousness.

[Ewan]

Posted by Blastolabs (here)

If I cut my arm off my non physical body is also impacted.

How? Genuine question.

[apokalypse]

Posted by Blastolabs (here)

Posted by ozmirage (here)
Dr Thomas Campbell (of Monroe Institute & NASA), asserted that consciousness affects the material world, but not vice versa. Thus consciousness is the superior frame of reference. He goes on to explain how the disparity of Relativity and Quantum mechanics are resolved by considering our world as a simulation. Everything is a probability cloud until "nailed down" by measurement. It also explains the famous "double slit" experiment where light was shown to be a particle or a wave, but not both. And he also pointed out that the "Big Bang" is a direct violation of Causality, since we cannot determine what caused it (or preceded it) - and thus the whole universe is a "metaphysical" manifestation.

While I agree that consciousness affects the material world, I would also say that the material world clearly impacts consciousness.
If I cut my arm off my non physical body is also impacted.

i heard from a mate who have 3rd eye...let say a person get shot is cause of death will see bullet hole.

[ExomatrixTV]

• NEW EVIDENCE ???: Simulation Theory Reveals CRACKS in Our Reality | Anthony Peake

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=W6OXKiHv3Hg

Today, we have an extraordinary guest who has spent a lifetime journeying through esoteric realms, quantum physics, and the ultimate mystery of life itself—Anthony Peake. You won't want to miss this, so stick around till the end, and please hit that "Subscribe" button to stay updated on future episodes!

As a young boy in 1966, Anthony Peake's curiosity knew no bounds. Unlike his peers engrossed in the world of Batman and Superman, Anthony found himself irresistibly drawn to the arcane and the mystical. It all started when he stumbled upon a book called "The Sky People" by Brinsley Le Poer Trench. From that point, he delved into works like "Man Myth and Magic," "Project Trojan Horse" by John Keel, and Jacques Vallee’s "Passport to Magonia." This ignited an insatiable appetite to explore the unknown, making him a lifelong learner who wanted to know everything about everything.

His educational journey was equally diverse. At university, Anthony selected a plethora of subjects to feed his ever-expanding curiosity—sociology of religion, theory of language development, and even the art of the Italian Renaissance. But life had different plans, steering him into a career in management, where his intellectual pursuits took a back seat but never really left him.

Fast forward to the year 2000, a twist of fate enabled him to take a sabbatical. Seizing the moment, he channeled decades of research and curiosity into writing a book. After one grueling yet fulfilling year, he emerged with the manuscript of "Cheating the Ferryman," a compelling blend of quantum physics, neurology, ancient myths, altered states of consciousness, and the enigma of death. While it took five more years and a significant re-write for the book to finally hit the shelves under a new title, "Is There Life After Death – The Extraordinary Science of What Happens When We Die," it was well worth the wait.

Anthony’s groundbreaking work caught the eye of experts. With the help of Professor Bruce Greyson, an article based on his "Cheating the Ferryman" hypothesis was published in the esteemed Journal of Near-Death Studies. From there, it's been a whirlwind of recognition and thought leadership, changing our understanding of life and what comes after.

So, what drives this incredible man? How does he make sense of the mysteries that baffle most of us? To find out, tune into today's conversation with Anthony Peake. Hit the "Like" button if you're excited to go on this intellectual journey, and share this video with anyone you know who's intrigued by life's biggest questions.

Finally, if you love diving deep into fascinating topics like this, don't forget to subscribe and click the notification bell. Let's continue exploring the world's most mind-bending stories together!

Thank you for watching, and please enjoy my conversation with Anthony Peake!

00:00 - Episode Teaser
00:24 - Next Level Souls Titles
01:04 - Anthony Peake's Background
13:31 - What is the Chemical in the Brain when there is NDE
20:28 - The Altered States of NDE
29:04 - What is the Damon?
30:36 - The Idea of Reincarnation
39:00 - Moral Judgement
42:01 - Choosing the Path
46:54 - What is the Concept of Vibration?
52:53 - What am I here to learn?
57:34 - Definition of a Good Life
57:46 - Definition of God
57:54 - Ultimate Purpose of Life
58:01 - Contact Anthony Peake

[Ernie Nemeth]

The above interview was quite entertaining. Yet I find that there are fundamental flaws in the logic that may or may not bias the conclusions.

The topic is basically about the 'bus' and the 'driver'. Here they use ancient words like daemon, to denote the automaton, or body, or bus, that the 'operator' controls. Peake likens the experience to a video game, where the character has no idea they have died and have been 'reset', to start all over again. But the player knows. And the player learns from the character's experience in the game. By repetition, the player learns how to 'win'.

In my opinion, the ''win' is anticlimactic because it is inevitable. Eventually everyone wins. In effect then, the cause becomes meaningless.

Who 'wins', anyway? The bus? Or the driver? If it is the bus, the entire experience is alien and unnatural, because it would be happening to 'somebody else'. If it is the driver, one must ask, "What compelled them to construct such an elaborate ruse to deal with a problem that could be resolved quite easily if approached head-on?"

If the bus is a sock puppet we pull over ourselves and its animation is entirely our will, what is the meaning behind the scenes? Why do we approach this thing as Peake proclaims we do?

There was an interesting bit there when Peake was describing how the player navigates obstacles by testing the alternatives. If the character dies, the player avoids that scenario the next time around.
This is akin to what is observed about electrical discharge. The electrons seem to test alternatives instantaneously and choose the shortest and least resistive path to ground - every time. It is exactly how entangled particles behave regardless of the distance separating them - instantaneously.

The theory, however, interchanges viewpoints arbitrarily between the nature of the driver with the 'bus' and the distinction between this realm and that other realm where lives are lived sequentially in a dreamworld.

But if the theory is taken to its extreme it reduces neatly into a compact little story that goes like this:


The ground or base state is the void, an eternal emptiness devoid of description because it is nothing - a realm of zero contrast or distinction but capable of infinite potential. What is the void but a dream?

Within this realm a being entered and began an experiment focused on integrating its split personality and alleviating itself of its schizophrenic tendencies. Or maybe a deranged demigod got lost in 'space'. Perhaps it was and is just a failed experiment thrown to the side and forgotten.

In any case, the being designed, 'fantasized', organic vehicles its 'personas' could each inhabit and thereby confront its alter egos 'face to face' in a phantom world of automatons. By repetition the personas would learn to integrate and thereby halt the schizophrenic indicators.

Instead, the personas have learned to protect their own integral selves and they have proliferated beyond the designed parameters. Cracks have begun to show as the experiment prepares to reset the entire game and sweep the board clean.

The schizophrenic tendencies tip the being into a manic period, a time of annihilation and destruction...
The game resets. Play Again?


And still the being sleeps, unable or unwilling to rose itself up out of its perpetual slumbering state.
Lost in a world of ghosts and fantasy.

[ExomatrixTV]

Partial related insights:

• OBE Reveals 'Our Simulation is Ending' According to Darius J. Wright

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[Michel Leclerc]

Posted by ExomatrixTV (here)
[

(...)

Donald Hoffman

(...)

Thank you John, more than 2 years after you published this.

I watched a few minutes ago the first picture.

Hoffman is the victim of his own metaphor – and we all are, to an extent. When he describes the “reality” we “see” as a “headset”, then obviously we will only be able to “see" -- I am using “see” here in his meaning, defined also by the “headset” metaphor, but, as per the use mystics make of the verb, and also as per Juan Matus’ “seeing” in Castaneda, there are other forms of “seeing” -- within the limit of the meanings we associate, or rather: he associates, with a "headset”.

During a “vision”, I “saw” a colour that does not exist in my “normal” reality, but it is impossible for me to pretend that only I “saw” it, or that only a certain number of people (as in “those who took ayahuasca”) have “seen” it in their lives. So it is not so much our generic limited ability to “see” that limits us but rather the fact that each of us calls “seeing” (i.e. attaches the word label “seeing” to) certain experiences –- the commonality of which we do check with others at times (“Did you see that?” after having seen a ufo fly by, but no, our friend standing next to us and watching the sky as well did not “see“ it..) -- : certain experiences that are unique to each of us. There is no way of finally ascertaining that your "seeing” is the same as mine – and hence that we "see” the “same” thing. We can agree that we do, but this is another thing.

Thinking of Mara (hello Bill): what if we, as humans, do not only have our own sensory faculty of seeing, but also 6th-sense “seeing”, and additionally 16 other, or even n other or even an infinite number of other ways of "seeing”, some of which even blend over into ways of hearing, ways of sensing by touch, ways of tasting, smelling, the specific sensory perceptions of a squid for instance, or of ufo occupant A, or ufo occupant B etc. etc., the mix of various intensities of which senses being idiosyncratical, unique to each of us? Synesthesia is precisely that, although limited to the classical senses – and it confronts us with this enigma: what is seeing what one hears? And how to “measure” the mix that each person with synesthesia experiences? How would we know? But more even: how could we infirm, falsify, my hypothesis/imagination/dream that a “limitless synesthesia” constitutes every person’s perception?

And what about dogs then, whose smell comes second place to them whereas for us it takes only 4th place – how actually complex (as a mix of intensities) would their interaction with reality not be? Would a “limitless synesthesia” (though – or rather therefore – different from ours) not describe their perception as well?

How would we know which of these senses helps Mara to reach the top of the mountain without too much effort since “she” decided to reshuffle the order of importance of the various components, and hence the very structure of relationships between the components, of the mix in such a way that she “sees” again, although being blind when we measure only her medically confirmable sense of “seeing”?

I think that the above is a better description of reality than the “headset” metaphor, which is only restrictive and saddening (Hoffman expresses dissatisfaction, anguish at what he thinks is a limitation (it is, but is self-imposed)) – just like Ockam’s razor is for describing scientific process and progress (as a kind of necessary sacrament in scientist religion).

((Why does man continue to use fabricated artifacts as metaphors to describe reality? Why does he even think that his latest tool/toy, the computer, is an adequate metaphor? If it were the case, why not think then that a quantum computer would be an adequate metaphor for how each of us processes reality?))

A quantum computer cannot even begin to “understand” (=simulate) our way of “seeing” reality.

[Michel Leclerc]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)

The above interview was quite entertaining. Yet I find that there are fundamental flaws in the logic that may or may not bias the conclusions.

(...)

And still the being sleeps, unable or unwilling to rose itself up out of its perpetual slumbering state.
Lost in a world of ghosts and fantasy.

Thank you Ernie. (Thank you John.)

You voiced very well your objections – and mine. (Of course there was something quite sympathique to watch guest and host get tears in the eyes about how nice it was to meet in the film, as if in the flesh.)

As I hinted at regarding Hoffman's statements: it is not enough to throw a metaphor at a phenomenon to explain it. This seems to be what Mr Peake does like a real virtuoso and even more: he mingles the phenomena and the metaphors but would still like to convene a dozen great minds to a gathering during which they somehow will help him get out of the metaphor chaos he has created. His is not one toy but an entire shop of toys. At least in his presentation.

Of course his suggestions popping up from the worlds of cosmology, neurology, sociology are quite interesting – but their explaining power ends where the metaphor starts to limp (“omnis comparatio claudicat”) and overreaches its applicability and explaining power in a different environment. He himself points to the danger of metaphors when in passing he states that he does not like the term “dimension” because (my words) its use in non-mathematical contexts stretches it too far and therefore brings darkness to the facts to be explained instead of light.

I remain completely cold at and even am put off by the computer game metaphor (exactly like for Hoffman) which somehow seems to “tell a lot” to people belonging to that generation. (To me, it tells a lot about them.) Would hiking in the woods not have been a healthier occupation during their boyhood and adolescence? The bus and the driver, Ernie, I prefer endlessly. Or the horse and its rider, to quote Greek philosophy.

Peake brings in the concept of “Godamon” (at least, it sounded like that), which seems to revolve around the idea that the daemonic hierarchy climbs up to a final unique upper level. Nice, but how to understand that unless we already know what we try to mean when we use the word “G/god”? The "god daemon" metaphor adds a twist to certain Gnostics for sure, but the Gnostics are in less need of Peake’s theories than Peake's theories of the Gnostics I am afraid. Playing computer games does strange things to the concept of the Divine. It even considers God to be a simulation of Itself simulating what simulates It.

A disappointing last thing.

What is the purpose of this temporarily gelled combination of concepts? It is “really exciting”, as Mr Peake says, a few times. A strange phrase. No mystic I have read anywhere uses it. You can only excite what is already there, obviously – but mystics are no tourists: they love the realm that they have been given access to. They want to immigrate there: they love the locals.

[ExomatrixTV]

• Why Do Some Scientists Say That We Are Living In a Simulation?:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=nUXosWbFHcs

Elon Musk is a prominent advocate of the simulation hypothesis, suggesting there's a very slim chance we exist in the base reality. He famously remarked, "There's a billion to one chance we're living in base reality." This viewpoint is shared by an increasing number of academics. Exploring the likelihood of our existence within a simulation, examining supporting evidence, and considering the potential implications of such a reality is the focus of this discussion. Do we live in a simulation?

[ExomatrixTV]

• MIT Doctor Proves: We're Living In Simulation? Evidence Reveals "Cracks In Reality" | Donald Hoffman:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=oLYZmBuH4FM

Donald Hoffman received a PhD in Computational Psychology from MIT and is a Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine. He is the author of over 100 scientific papers and three books, including The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes (2019) and Visual Intelligence: How we create what we see (1998). He received a Distinguished Scientific Award from the American Psychological Association for early career research, the Rustum Roy Award of the Chopra Foundation, and the Troland Research Award from the US National Academy of Sciences.

His writing has appeared in Scientific American, New Scientist, LA Review of Books, and Edge, and his work has been featured in Wired, Quanta, The Atlantic, Ars Technica, National Public Radio, Discover Magazine, and Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman. He has published a mathematical theory of consciousness. He has a TED Talk titled “Do we see reality as it is?”

Please enjoy my conversation with Donald Hoffman.

0:00:00 - Episode Teaser
0:01:09 - What is consciousness?
0:11:31 - Science and Consciousness
0:20:40 - The Simulation Theory
0:34:59 - The limitations of language and the future of global communication.
0:39:20 - The Akashic Records
0:52:02 - The concept of everything happening all at once
1:05:51 - The spiritual traditions
1:10:34 - Where did the Vedic Text information come from?
1:15:10 - How do we stop this game?
1:22:27 - Living a fulfilled life
1:25:40 - Advice to young Don
1:26:37 - Definition of Source or God
1:27:42 - Ultimate purpose of life
1:28:24 - Don's work
1:28:56 - Final Message

[ExomatrixTV]

• The Hex(agon) of Saturn; the Myth of the Black Cube:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8VowHHeiRbI

How did ancient people know that there was an astronomically strange characteristic about the 6th Planet? ... What can their stories this tell us about ourselves? ... We humbly Speculate on Black Cube/Saturnus mythology and how it ties to Christ and Transcendence within our Current biological form.

• 00:00 Ancient people knew about Saturn's hexagram at its North Pole, suggesting an understanding of celestial anomalies without advanced technology.
• 05:32 Saturn's connection to the numbers 3, 6, and 9, as well as the hexagonal Black Cube, is significant across various cultures and ties into sacred geometry.
• 06:04 Scientific discovery of Saturn's hexagon in 1981 sparked intrigue and raised questions about the planet's influence on Earth and human behavior.
• 08:22 Symbolism, especially through mythologies, provides a consistent language over time, unlike spoken language, aiding in understanding complex concepts.
• 10:25 Suffering is portrayed as a catalyst for learning and technological advancements, posing the question whether our "flawed reality" serves a purpose.
• 13:50 The allegorical interpretation of Christ's crucifixion is explored, suggesting a message of transcending the limitations represented by the Black Cube.
• 16:07 Speculation on Saturn's role in shaping human consciousness and whether we are part of an experiment or a larger cosmic plan is considered.
• 17:43 The analogy of humans as fleas in a jar highlights the potential control or limitations imposed on us, challenging our perception of objective reality.
• 21:23 Various spiritual teachers throughout history, including Christ, Krishna, and Buddha, are seen as awakening humanity to our potential, often met with resistance.
• 23:00 The concept of serving each other and achieving harmony is emphasized as essential for individual and collective well-being, akin to the cooperation in the human body.